Why an Armed Citizenry is No Guarantee of Civil Justice

The American Founding Fathers were convinced that the last, best hedge against tyranny was an armed citizenry. If the State has a monopoly on the use of force, then the citizenry by nature have no recourse against oppressive policies, or the usurpation of their rights; they must meekly submit and do whatever the “government” tells them to do. The Second Amendment was never about hunting, sporting or even the right of self-defense against criminals; the Fathers always saw the people as the final defenders of their own freedom.

However, the world has changed since the Constitutional Convention and words no longer mean the same things today, as they did in 1787; this is certainly true of the definition of the very word “freedom.” For the framers of the American Republic, “freedom” had a distinct and definite meaning. American culture had been significantly influenced by Reformed Christianity; studies have shown that at the time the Constitution was ratified, approximately 90% of Americans adopted some form of Reformed theology. Even those who had accepted Deism still thought within Biblical frameworks to one degree or another; the “social compact” theory of government was simply a secularization of the Reformed doctrine of the covenant.

The Framers assumed that Christian men would and could lead self-governed secure and productive lives without the oppressive tyranny of either the Church or the State. Hence, their definition of “freedom” was not everyone doing whatever he pleased, whenever he pleased, but rather “freedom” from interference by certain, formalized institutions. “Freedom” was men being able to practice their religion, publish their opinions and peaceably assemble without the Church or State persecuting them.

The Founders were also unanimous that our Constitution could only work with a religious people, committed to certain common moral values that were instilled within them by family, church and school. Just one example illustrates this; the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 states, “Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged (cited in DeMar, America’s Christian History, pg. 154).” Please note that “religion” and “morality” were assumed to be essential parts of a child’s education (the word “religion” was universally understood to be “Christianity”) which in turn were necessary for good government AND the general happiness of mankind. Contrary to modern opinions, the Founder’s believed in a separation of church and state, not a separation of state and religion; both were necessary for good government. All that the Constitution forbids is the Federal government imposing a national church over the people (yet note that many of the States had established churches -Massachusetts for example-and nobody saw this as inconsistent because the Constitution restricted the Federal Governments, not the State government).

Furthermore, tax supported public education was virtually unknown in 1789; most schools were specific ministry of various Christian denominations, but even private schools universally had a clear, Christian value system as an integral part of their educational philosophy. Thus the Northwest Ordinance shows that the Federal government saw Christian education, Christian religion and Christian morality as essential to instilling civic virtue. They did not think one could have good government without having “good” (i.e., moral) citizens.

Thus Christian morality was universally recognized as foundational to a healthy, prosperous and FREE society. As long as the citizens adopted and internalized Christian ethical norms, they lived responsibly without needing a tyrannical State micromanaging every aspect of their lives. While all men sin, Christian morality, when endorsed and supported as the accepted cultural standard, protects the family, encourages thrift, rewards hard work, as well as inhibiting promiscuity (which destroys the family), aggression, theft, murder and rape. Studies of crime rates during the early Republic have shown them to be so low as to look almost utopian by modern standards. During the first thirty years after the adoption of the Constitution, men could travel up and down the eastern seaboard without fear of robbery or assault. Part of this is undoubtedly due to the almost universal possession of firearms; but it also says something about the widespread acceptance of and adherence to Christian morality as well.

The emphasis on “We the people…” in the Constitution is not as some have argued a blind, naive confidence in or elevation of Man at the expense of God, but rather an assumption that a godly people, freed from their sin, will live godly, sober and industrious lives without governmental interference. In fact, the Framers were universal in seeing that the “government” was always the greatest threat to liberty; a threat that only the people themselves could counter; which is why they MUST be armed. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government the Constitutional delegates had decided on, he is reputed to have replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

However, as we noted, the world has changed. What 18th century philosophers and theologians could assume, we can no longer take for granted. Modern men are NOT self-governed in either their personal, or public lives. It must never be forgotten that there are two rival religions that have sought to win men’s allegiance since the beginning of time; Biblical faith in a sovereign God, and Satanic faith in the power of Man. Satanic religion has ALWAYS emphasized the power of the State as the supreme expression of Man’s power on earth (see Genesis 11:4-6). Biblical religion on the other hand has always sought a decentralized, limited State because God alone is the King of Heaven and Earth (1 Sam 8:4-22). And over time, men will become consistent with either one or the other of these two rival religious worldviews.

If men adopt the satanic view, they will magnify the State, and therefore power will flow from the people to various governmental functions. The citizens will look to the State to feed them, clothe them, educate their children and care for them in their old age. And for these “blessings” they willingly trade their freedom for security. Thomas Hobbes, during height of the English civil war offered the following justification for the “Divine Right of Kings by calling for “an absolute monarchy, arguing that there would be nothing but bloodshed without it. Property, security, family life — basically, civilization as we know it — were impossible without the commonwealth under the sovereign…; therefore, we are bound to obey the king’s every command. The alternative, he famously declared, was far worse: “a perpetual war of every man against his neighbor,” in which existence is “nasty, brutish, and short.” (Leigh Jenco, Reason On-Line, May 2003- read his review at http://www.reason.com/0305/cr.lj.property.shtml).”

The State will then allow men to sin with impunity by permitting immorality; just so long as they recognize the ultimate divinity of the State. But the satanic State will allow no challenge to its claim of final authority and no price is too high to pay to preserve its power. Christians were sent to the arenas of Rome, not because of their private religious beliefs about Jesus, but because in good conscience they could not acknowledge Caesar as “Lord” because the essence of Christianity is “Jesus is Lord.” There were and are two exclusive religious worldviews; and when the State is the only authority with weapons, it will use those weapons to preserve and advance its own agenda. Never forget that the most horrendous mass murders in history have been committed by the legally elected governments of non-Christian people; i.e., Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China not to mention the holocaust of American abortions.

Men who adopt the satanic view of the Messianic State will not and cannot lead self-governed lives. Romans 1: 20ff clearly details a culture under divine judgment; without God, men become perverted, depraved, murderous individuals, constantly at each others’ throats, just as Hobbes warned. Thus cultures that have abandoned the One True God tend to swing between two polar extremes; vicious anarchies on the one hand or oppressive tyrannies on the other. Since men cannot live in constant fear of violence and theft from their neighbor, they turn to the strong to protect the weak. The strong willing gives them security, but only at the cost of their liberty. This was Hobbes’ argument in the 1640’s and it remains valid today; men must be governed by SOMETHING; either external controls by an oppressive State, or by the internal transformation of the Holy Spirit.

Let there be no mistake; “freedom” has been a rarity in human experience. Very few cultures have ever experienced it; even fewer have retained it. In this pendulum swing, the inevitable first step towards tyranny is disarming the population so that the State retains a monopoly on power. Hence, many stout Second Amendment advocates are legitimately concerned about increasing gun-control because they rightly see this as the slippery slope to tyranny. They cannot understand the mentality of the anti-gun philosophy that wants to disarm the citizens, put citizens at risk of armed thugs, and pave the way to governmental monopoly of power. What they fail to realize is that the anti-gunners are in fact simply a little further down the road to being consistent with their basic presuppositions; they have renounced God in favor of the State-therefore, the State MUST have exclusive power- anything else is a threat to their “religious” worldview that salvation comes from the State.

In the recent war with Iraq, it certainly appeared from news film that the average Iraqi citizen had access not just to handguns, but fully automatic assault rifles, grenades and machine-guns. Saddam of course, expected his people to use these arms to fight against coalition forces; though when given a choice, the average Iraqi citizen decided discretion was the better part of valor. Yet the question that must be raised is “If the people of Iraq were armed, why did they not over-throw their own government?” If in fact our own founding fathers were correct, then an armed citizenry SHOULD have been able to depose an oppressive dictator. He had murdered their fathers and sons, raped their wives and daughters, illegally imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered thousands, tens of thousands of their fellow citizens. But even though they were armed, they did not revolt (other than after the first Gulf War when they expected Coalition Forces to come to their aid and do most of the dirty work).

Clearly, there are other factors here; even fully automatic rifles are pretty useless against tanks, artillery and airplanes dropping poison gas. But even in these dire circumstances, the Afghans managed to defeat the Russians who used similar weapons wielded by better trained troops. Why couldn’t the Iraqis do the same thing?

Perhaps the reason is that the Iraqi’s had no hope of anything better. The Afghanis resisted because they are a fractured people who have been giving real world evidence of Hobbes’ assessment of the “man in nature:” they have literally been at each others’ throats since the time of Alexander the Great. When Russia invaded, they simply put aside their personal quarrels for a while to focus on the new enemy. Once Russia was no longer willing to pay the price in blood, the Afghanis went right back to their old feuds with every man’s hand against his neighbor. The Taliban managed to bring a little oppressive, tyrannical stability for a while, but the Afghanis were perfectly willing to work with the Americans to bring the Taliban down so they could get right back to their age old practice of tribal warfare.

The Iraqis on the other hand, simply acceded to Saddam’s tyranny as the best guarantee of some stability and security. Thus Afghanistan and Iraq merely represent two different extremes of the same pendulum; anarchy versus tyranny.

The anti-gun crowd in America fears anarchy and are willing to trade their liberty for the promise of security. How often have their politicians and pet police chiefs warned of the dire consequences of allowing the average citizen to go about armed on a daily basis? They have repeatedly predicted that concealed carry laws would lead to American becoming one great “Dodge City” with people settling their grievances at high noon on the street. Of course this has never happened. Citizens with concealed carry permits are the most law abiding people in the country.

However, the pro-gun crowd has a serious philosophical problem; they are clinging to Christian values of self-government and liberty, even while often denying its source. What happens when that armed citizen becomes just a little more consistent with his philosophical rebellion to Christ? Do you really want to live next door to a heavily armed individual who has no regard for human life or set of values higher than his own personal will? If you are a gun-owner, have you ever read the titles in Paladin Press or Delta Force that offer to teach you how to kill people in various gruesome ways, change your identity to escape prosecution, provide various strategies to take revenge on your neighbors without being caught, or how to manufacture and use explosives? SOMEONE is buying and reading those books; books that have a blatant anarchist philosophy. And how long before that guy down the street decides to use his newfound knowledge and expertise to settle a grudge with YOU?

Thus simply having access to weapons is no guarantee of social justice; of being able to live in a free land where a man can go about his business in peace and security. Somalia is a nation where every CHILD has access to a fully automatic AK-47 assault rifle; but it is also a nation torn apart by constant civil war between rival factions. The entire nation is literally starving to death because you cannot provide for your family, if you have to wage constant warfare against your neighbor down the street.

The ONLY guarantee of freedom is the self-governed man, who has internalized Christian morality and values because He recognizes that his ultimate allegiance must be to King Jesus. The self-governed man believes that there are values that transcend his personal peace, comfort or desires; values that he is willing to defend with his life. The self-governed man works hard, lives frugally and yet shares with the needy. The self-governed man does not give into fits or rage when his pride is piqued, or “settle the score” with people who have offended him by taking a weapon to his workplace and massacring innocents.

A firearm is power; the power to defend life and liberty, or the power to impose evil. In the hands of a self-governed Christian man, it becomes a tool; hopefully a tool never used other than in plinking at aluminum cans, punching holes in paper targets or occasionally bringing home some venison. But in the hands of a man who recognizes no higher authority other than his own will, it becomes an instrument of evil and oppression. It is not the guns that have to be feared, but the religious and philosophical presuppositions of those who carry the guns that ought to concern us. Guns are no guarantee of liberty or social justice; only transformed hearts and faith in Christ can give us true freedom and security.